8 ms·

Near-miss between FedEx and Southwest flights in Austin

148 points by kristjansson 4y ago

AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
This is crazy. Another post I saw shows FlightRadar24 data with the fedex flight at only 74 feet above the runway when they started to climb. Fedex pilots need a medal and probably a new pair of pants. Can't wait for blancolirio to break this one down, very curious how this happened.
- fbdab103 4y ago
  If you are the pilot in a situation like this, does the airline say, "Alice, you did good. Take the next month to yourself." Or is it just business as usual, "See you on Monday." kind of deal?
  - judge2020 4y ago
    I have to imagine it's mostly paperwork and statements, since everyone is going to try to shift blame wherever they can.
    - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
      I have to strongly disagree with your comment about shifting blame. Pilots and airlines do not seem to shift fault away from themselves but seem to do a phenomenal job of identifying root causes to avoid future incidents.
      - jrockway 4y ago
        Yup. Sometimes a pilot has to make a decision that there is no training for, decides wrong, people die, but still has a job because the investigation revealed there was no way to know how to make the right decision. Interesting case study: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/man-vs-runway-the-crash-of-american-airlines-flight-625-888eb64c8644 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/man-vs-runway-the-crash-...
        areyousure 4y ago
        Wow, that is a remarkable case study. The Wikipedia info box summary is "Runway overrun caused by pilot error". And indeed, the pilots were going too fast with the flaps set wrong. At some point, they indeed faced a difficult decision, but one that was caused by their own, multiple previous errors. Having made that decision incorrectly, they also failed to stop the aircraft as well as they could. From your link: > In the end, the NTSB identified two separate decisions by the captain which led to the accident: first, his decision not to go around immediately when the plane started to float, which was inconsistent with his training; and second, his decision to finally go around after it was already too late to do so. The float itself was caused by excessive airspeed on touchdown, in combination with an ill-timed gust of wind. In a later revision suggested by the Air Line Pilots Association, the NTSB also added the “non-availability of information about the aircraft’s go-around performance capabilities” as a contributing factor to the captain’s decision. 37 people died and the pilots kept their jobs. Truly amazing job security, much like this other example where the pilots almost killed 1000 people (but didn't in fact kill any): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395221
      - ekianjo 4y ago
        > seem to do a phenomenal job of identifying root causes to avoid future incidents. When you see the regular incidents that do not result in crash, that statement would be obviously regarded as false. Yes, things are mostly reliable because most of the time there are at least several safety features or processes in the way, but most crashes and incidents are still due to human error.
  - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
    My understanding is pilots at the majors (UA/DA/AA) have fairly liberal no-fault call out policies regardless of at-work incidents. Your wife asked you for a divorce last night and you can't focus on work? You can call out without consequences. You just couldn't sleep and don't feel able to fly? Call out. They understand the importance of the human factor here and would much rather have to reschedule a flight than have a potentially impaired person make a mistake. Obviously if you're doing this regularly, you're going to have a conversation with management or the chief pilot or someone (I've no idea what the actual reporting structure is) but if you don't abuse the policy, you can call out without consequence. I don't know specifically about FedEx but I imagine they have something somewhat similar, the FedEx/UPS pilot jobs are also considered top tier (but not nearly as top tier as a major long-haul position) with good benefits. I do imagine, especially considering how much press this is getting, that the pilots in this case are going to spend the next week or two doing paperwork and maybe some press even. How quickly they return to flight will probably be dictated primarily by how they feel. Fact is as dramatic as this seems to us it's possible the pilots are completely unfazed and just want to get back to work. I think if they wanted a week or three off to recoup that FedEx would make accommodations. Pilots seem to be treated reasonably well at major airlines (ignoring regionals and subsidiaries, where they are cattle) and the possible negative value of negative press (FedEx fires pilot who saved plane from near-miss for asking for time off to recover!) this should be a no-brainer for them. Pilots also have a good union behind them.
steveBK123 4y ago
[flagged]
- AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
  It very subjectively feels like the number of incidents i've seen in post-covid commercial aviation has increased significantly, but, again subjectively, I'll say I don't think ATC is the issue. In the incident last month when a DAL flight had a rejected takeoff after a UA flight crossed their runway, the UA flight crew was clearly at fault when you listen to the transcript and barring any major new evidence i'm sure the FTC report will agree. The flight in November where a LATAM flight collided with a fire truck was also not the fault of ATC, thought we might never know exactly what caused the runway incursion there because the driver (and everyone else) in the lead vehicle was killed.
  - steveBK123 4y ago
    That was my question though I obviously put it too lightly for the killjoys here this evening. We have seen a number of very close ATC calls, including recently at JFK. Curious to see hard numbers if there are more incidents or just more eyes/coverage of similar incident numbers. We all know flying has been crazy the last couple years, maybe understaffed, overstretched, cutting corners trying to turn flights, etc?
    - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
      HN does not like people who point out the "quiet quitting" idea.
      - WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago
        I think ATC is overworked and there hasn't been as many advances in technology in that sector as well as under training for years. Honestly surprising that planes don't collide more often, the world around us relies on airplanes for logistics but everything about the entire aviation field from pilots to mechanics is a battle of never having enough people.
bombcar 4y ago
We should have the recording of the audio from LiveATC or similar …
- mjirv 4y ago
  Recording: https://twitter.com/winglets747/status/1622054756666540033?s=20&t=t09pOC0FhrgX3jg7iwZR3Q https://twitter.com/winglets747/status/1622054756666540033?s...
arnon 4y ago
Well, it was a "near hit" actually!
- blahedo 4y ago
  No, it was almost a hit, but it was in fact a miss; and it was not a distant miss, so it was a near miss. There are plenty of phrases in English that make no sense compositionally, but "near miss" is not one of them.
  - brandonagr2 4y ago
    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98951-here-s-a-phrase-that-apparently-the-airlines-simply-made-up https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98951-here-s-a-phrase-that-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM
  - idbehold 4y ago
    Near | Adverb 1. Close by 2. Almost So both interpretations are correct. This reminds me of a comic strip (I think) where they're training someone working at a nuclear reactor and the instructor says, "Just remember: you can never have too much water in a nuclear reactor." The phrase can be interpreted to mean two very different things.
    - ec109685 4y ago
      I had to Google for the other interpretation of that: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282388/interpretation-of-ambiguous-sentence-you-can-t-put-too-much-water-into-a-nuclea https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282388/interpret...
    - bscphil 4y ago
      From a quick search it looks like it was S10E06 of Saturday Night Live. The skit is at 53:45. https://archive.org/details/saturday-night-live-s-10-e-06-ed-asner-the-kinks https://archive.org/details/saturday-night-live-s-10-e-06-ed...
    - 4y ago
ledauphin 4y ago
I'm wondering why the FedEx pilots did not offset on the abort.
- fbdab103 4y ago
  That close to the ground, maybe it is not safe to attempt sudden horizontal changes?
  - bdonlan 4y ago
    Any kind of turn costs lift, and that’s not what you want to spend when you’re trying not to hit something on the ground. As such turns are generally not performed below a certain altitude.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  They were following standard procedures here for going around and not improvising. Standard procedure is to climb out runway headings usually and then make some turn. In the same way, the pilots would have seen with their eyes before the minimums threshold that the runway was not clear and made the go-around decision. It's not a great situation but I don't think it was that dangerous ultimately.
  - wlonkly 4y ago
    And it's press button, receive go-around. I would imagine that choosing to hand-fly in that scenario would usually produce worse outcomes.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
peeters 4y ago
So from the ATC recordings it seems like everyone was made aware of the traffic, i.e. the Southwest flight acknowledged there was an approach 3 miles out and FedEx acknowledged the 737 ahead of them. i.e. it's not like the ATC forgot it gave one clearance or the other. So it seems like the Southwest takeoff took longer than expected and ATC lost track of the situation and thus did not revoke clearance to one or the other? This is not me assigning blame just trying to get a sense of the context. Edit: in the tower comms the Tower asks Southwest to confirm it's on the roll just 16 seconds before the call from FedEx for Southwest to abort takeoff. Incredible the tight margins these guys play with to keep things moving at the airport. People are speculating the tower had no visibility of the runway traffic due to weather.
- diebeforei485 4y ago
  Can you link to the ATC recordings? (Or the timestamp, if it's only available as part of a much a longer recording on LiveATC)?)
  - dmix 4y ago
    https://archive.liveatc.net/kaus/KAUS3-Twr-Feb-04-2023-1230Z.mp3 https://archive.liveatc.net/kaus/KAUS3-Twr-Feb-04-2023-1230Z... https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1481281#p23660359 https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1481281#...
- ec109685 4y ago
  Given flight radar exits, why isn’t it possible to identify these situations in real-time reliably and alert there is a possible problem?
  - dmix 4y ago
    From the linked twitter thread: > For starters visibility was down to 1/8th of a mile. So tower likely never saw how close this was. Second off apparently Austin does not have ground radar. Regardless of that though this is the second near catastrophic accident we’ve had in two weeks or so here in the US alone.
Xcelerate 4y ago
I wonder how often these close calls occur. I was on a flight a few days ago and using an app to track my flight while on the plane. We were at 32,000 ft and according to the app another aircraft was headed straight toward us at 33,000 ft. Just before the two planes overlapped on the app, I looked out my window and saw the other plane go right above us. It was absolutely insane how close it appeared and how astonishing a 1,000+ mph speed difference is. (If you're curious which flights: DL75 and TK1344 on Feb 1, 13:04:20 GMT). My understanding is that planes passing this close to each other is relatively common, as 1,000 ft is the minimum vertical separation for RVSM airspace, but I was still surprised that the other plane was directly above us and that some sort of optimization algorithm isn't used to maintain horizontal separation as well just in case there is an error in communication on the flight levels.
- bathtub365 4y ago
  Commercial airliners have the Traffic Collision Avoidance System that operates independently of ground based systems or ATC clearance to avoid collisions. Adding more separation would be the opposite of an optimization algorithm in the case of transoceanic flights - it would reduce the number of planes able to fly in the most efficient parts of the jet stream at one time.
- stevepeg 4y ago
  Airline pilot here: passing another aircraft opposite direction on the same lateral track with only 1000ft of vertical separation is about as normal as it gets. I’d say that it has occurred on almost all of the flights in my career so far. In certain areas of poor ATC coverage we sometimes use SLOP (strategic lateral offset procedures) to add a bit more margin for a height error. Edit: fun fact, you can actually hear the passing jet from the flight deck just after it has passed, a slight whoosh can be heard. Depending on conditions you can also feel a brief bump when crossing their wake (since the wake descends).
  - Xcelerate 4y ago
    That's really cool! I can only imagine from a pilot's perspective it must look like you're about to collide though; that would be a bit nerve-racking for me.
jrockway 4y ago
I've always thought that "cleared to land" instructions are a little too optimistic. Multiple planes can be cleared to land on the same runway, and planes can be cleared for takeoff on that runway at the same time. The logical thing to do would be to only have one outstanding clearance at a time, and require landing aircraft to go around if they're not cleared by, say, the decision height on the approach. (Not sure where this point would be on a Cat III ILS approach, though.) Doing it "my" way would probably reduce throughput, and given that thousands of aircraft a day are cleared to land while the plane in front of them is still in the air, it must not be too dangerous. But I have always thought it's weird. (I did some googling and apparently they do it "my" way in every country except the US? Figures!)
- _s 4y ago
  This is slightly incorrect. Only one aircraft is actually allowed to depart/land on a given runway at any one point in time. You can have clearance to land after the aircraft in front has landed or departed, but broadly two civilian aircraft occupying the same runway is a no-no if either are taking off or landing. Seaplanes is another matter entirely, and of course there are dozens of exceptions. You can have multiple aircraft cleared for a departure or arrival or approach - but note that this is not a clearance to take off or land. I've been given clearances to land roughly 5 seconds before my wheel touch and my hands were just about to shove power in to go around. I've been told to go around after my wheels are on the runway too. We usually know what ATC is doing or waiting for and we can anticipate those calls. I don't think the US is different from the RoW in that manner - they all need to conform to the ICAO regulations - otherwise we'd have chaos with US pilots navigating China or vice versa. Me: FAA (US) & CASA (AU) PPL w/MEA + IR.
  - hugh-avherald 4y ago
    In the US, clearance to land does not mean that other aircraft won't land, take-off, or cross your runway before you touch down. > Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe the positions of the aircraft and determine that prescribed runway separation will exist when the aircraft crosses the landing threshold. Issue traffic information to the succeeding aircraft if a preceding arrival has not been previously reported and when traffic will be departing prior to their arrival.
_s 4y ago
Lots of comments and obviously this seems like a big deal - but it usually isn't. Disclaimer - PPL, fly mostly twins under IFR, in Australia (still ICAO, if anything we're more or less a copy of the FAA). Most heavy jets are covering between 2-3 miles a minute when coming in to land. Usually a 3 mile call is to affirm to ATC that they are a minute away (or two for GA traffic). Most heavy jets also need anywhere from half a minute to three get airborne depending on size / weight / weather. On a clear day - you can see an aircraft lining up to depart so you can slow down a bit to give yourself some space. Usually ATC does that for you - asking one to slow down or the other to hurry up. Sometimes the sequencing gets a bit tight, it's annoying, you just power up and go around. Depending on visibility - you can circle in the circuit area to come back around, or follow the missed approach and line up to fly the approach (ILS, RNP etc) again. Now the hard thing here is that it was IFR weather - the incoming aircraft got visible with the runway when it was lower, and it didn't look like the departing aircraft was lifting off so they went around. It also means they have to follow the missed approach. Everyone was (mostly) aware of where everyone was, there was no real breakdown in communication nor in procedure. Departing aircraft knew there was one incoming and thought they had time, incoming knew there was a plane leaving and knew there might not be enough time. ATC is trying to keep the ball rolling for both. It's happened dozens of times for me. Final note - a Missed Approach procedure specifically takes you to safe place away from departing aircraft, who follow their own Standard Instrument Departures precisely because of this scenario. It's incredibly rare for these two procedures to converge / overlap. P.s. I've gone around / gone missed for everything from slow aircraft to gliders to a snake to wind shear to kangaroos. Literally the last few things just before landing you check are that your gear is down, you have clearance to land and the runway is clear.
- itronitron 4y ago
  Based on a similar incident I witnessed in the `90's, everyone in Austin can expect their evening news to feature a segment on how safe it is to fly in and out of Austin.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Thanks for the clear explanation. That is a great insight. Based on this I would expect goarounds to be more common but I barely remember witnessing one during my travel (not a heavy traveller but lets say about 100-200 flights total). Airport diversions yes once at least. So how often would you expect a go around in an airliner as a percentage of attempted landings?
sacnoradhq 4y ago
That's insane. Insane because I'm sitting here typing at the computer at 750 MSL / 200 AGL. If I look to my left, I see AUS approach parallel to the horizon about 3 miles / 5 km away. PS: Located in one of the most gerrymandered districts in the entire US, spanning Austin to San Antonio with a sliver of connection without constituents spanning I-35 for a distance of 80 mi / 130 km. The district looks like a broken q-tip or a lock pick.
cmurf 4y ago
https://avherald.com/h?article=504bc65b&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=504bc65b&opt=0
toomuchtodo 4y ago
Animation, radio audio, and subtitles courtesy of the VASAviation channel. https://youtu.be/DjoDn8zQgb8 https://youtu.be/DjoDn8zQgb8

148 points by kristjansson 4y ago

This is crazy. Another post I saw shows FlightRadar24 data with the fedex flight at only 74 feet above the runway when they started to climb. Fedex pilots need a medal and probably a new pair of pants. Can't wait for blancolirio to break this one down, very curious how this happened.

fbdab103 4y ago
If you are the pilot in a situation like this, does the airline say, "Alice, you did good. Take the next month to yourself." Or is it just business as usual, "See you on Monday." kind of deal?
- judge2020 4y ago
  I have to imagine it's mostly paperwork and statements, since everyone is going to try to shift blame wherever they can.
  - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
    I have to strongly disagree with your comment about shifting blame. Pilots and airlines do not seem to shift fault away from themselves but seem to do a phenomenal job of identifying root causes to avoid future incidents.
    - jrockway 4y ago
      Yup. Sometimes a pilot has to make a decision that there is no training for, decides wrong, people die, but still has a job because the investigation revealed there was no way to know how to make the right decision. Interesting case study: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/man-vs-runway-the-crash-of-american-airlines-flight-625-888eb64c8644 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/man-vs-runway-the-crash-...
      - areyousure 4y ago
        Wow, that is a remarkable case study. The Wikipedia info box summary is "Runway overrun caused by pilot error". And indeed, the pilots were going too fast with the flaps set wrong. At some point, they indeed faced a difficult decision, but one that was caused by their own, multiple previous errors. Having made that decision incorrectly, they also failed to stop the aircraft as well as they could. From your link: > In the end, the NTSB identified two separate decisions by the captain which led to the accident: first, his decision not to go around immediately when the plane started to float, which was inconsistent with his training; and second, his decision to finally go around after it was already too late to do so. The float itself was caused by excessive airspeed on touchdown, in combination with an ill-timed gust of wind. In a later revision suggested by the Air Line Pilots Association, the NTSB also added the “non-availability of information about the aircraft’s go-around performance capabilities” as a contributing factor to the captain’s decision. 37 people died and the pilots kept their jobs. Truly amazing job security, much like this other example where the pilots almost killed 1000 people (but didn't in fact kill any): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395221
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > seem to do a phenomenal job of identifying root causes to avoid future incidents. When you see the regular incidents that do not result in crash, that statement would be obviously regarded as false. Yes, things are mostly reliable because most of the time there are at least several safety features or processes in the way, but most crashes and incidents are still due to human error.
- AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
  My understanding is pilots at the majors (UA/DA/AA) have fairly liberal no-fault call out policies regardless of at-work incidents. Your wife asked you for a divorce last night and you can't focus on work? You can call out without consequences. You just couldn't sleep and don't feel able to fly? Call out. They understand the importance of the human factor here and would much rather have to reschedule a flight than have a potentially impaired person make a mistake. Obviously if you're doing this regularly, you're going to have a conversation with management or the chief pilot or someone (I've no idea what the actual reporting structure is) but if you don't abuse the policy, you can call out without consequence. I don't know specifically about FedEx but I imagine they have something somewhat similar, the FedEx/UPS pilot jobs are also considered top tier (but not nearly as top tier as a major long-haul position) with good benefits. I do imagine, especially considering how much press this is getting, that the pilots in this case are going to spend the next week or two doing paperwork and maybe some press even. How quickly they return to flight will probably be dictated primarily by how they feel. Fact is as dramatic as this seems to us it's possible the pilots are completely unfazed and just want to get back to work. I think if they wanted a week or three off to recoup that FedEx would make accommodations. Pilots seem to be treated reasonably well at major airlines (ignoring regionals and subsidiaries, where they are cattle) and the possible negative value of negative press (FedEx fires pilot who saved plane from near-miss for asking for time off to recover!) this should be a no-brainer for them. Pilots also have a good union behind them.

steveBK123 4y ago

[flagged]

AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
It very subjectively feels like the number of incidents i've seen in post-covid commercial aviation has increased significantly, but, again subjectively, I'll say I don't think ATC is the issue. In the incident last month when a DAL flight had a rejected takeoff after a UA flight crossed their runway, the UA flight crew was clearly at fault when you listen to the transcript and barring any major new evidence i'm sure the FTC report will agree. The flight in November where a LATAM flight collided with a fire truck was also not the fault of ATC, thought we might never know exactly what caused the runway incursion there because the driver (and everyone else) in the lead vehicle was killed.
- steveBK123 4y ago
  That was my question though I obviously put it too lightly for the killjoys here this evening. We have seen a number of very close ATC calls, including recently at JFK. Curious to see hard numbers if there are more incidents or just more eyes/coverage of similar incident numbers. We all know flying has been crazy the last couple years, maybe understaffed, overstretched, cutting corners trying to turn flights, etc?
  - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
    HN does not like people who point out the "quiet quitting" idea.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago
      I think ATC is overworked and there hasn't been as many advances in technology in that sector as well as under training for years. Honestly surprising that planes don't collide more often, the world around us relies on airplanes for logistics but everything about the entire aviation field from pilots to mechanics is a battle of never having enough people.

bombcar 4y ago

We should have the recording of the audio from LiveATC or similar …

mjirv 4y ago
Recording: https://twitter.com/winglets747/status/1622054756666540033?s=20&t=t09pOC0FhrgX3jg7iwZR3Q https://twitter.com/winglets747/status/1622054756666540033?s...

arnon 4y ago

Well, it was a "near hit" actually!

blahedo 4y ago
No, it was almost a hit, but it was in fact a miss; and it was not a distant miss, so it was a near miss. There are plenty of phrases in English that make no sense compositionally, but "near miss" is not one of them.
- brandonagr2 4y ago
  https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98951-here-s-a-phrase-that-apparently-the-airlines-simply-made-up https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98951-here-s-a-phrase-that-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM
- idbehold 4y ago
  Near | Adverb 1. Close by 2. Almost So both interpretations are correct. This reminds me of a comic strip (I think) where they're training someone working at a nuclear reactor and the instructor says, "Just remember: you can never have too much water in a nuclear reactor." The phrase can be interpreted to mean two very different things.
  - ec109685 4y ago
    I had to Google for the other interpretation of that: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282388/interpretation-of-ambiguous-sentence-you-can-t-put-too-much-water-into-a-nuclea https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282388/interpret...
  - bscphil 4y ago
    From a quick search it looks like it was S10E06 of Saturday Night Live. The skit is at 53:45. https://archive.org/details/saturday-night-live-s-10-e-06-ed-asner-the-kinks https://archive.org/details/saturday-night-live-s-10-e-06-ed...
  - 4y ago

ledauphin 4y ago

I'm wondering why the FedEx pilots did not offset on the abort.

fbdab103 4y ago
That close to the ground, maybe it is not safe to attempt sudden horizontal changes?
- bdonlan 4y ago
  Any kind of turn costs lift, and that’s not what you want to spend when you’re trying not to hit something on the ground. As such turns are generally not performed below a certain altitude.
jillesvangurp 4y ago
They were following standard procedures here for going around and not improvising. Standard procedure is to climb out runway headings usually and then make some turn. In the same way, the pilots would have seen with their eyes before the minimums threshold that the runway was not clear and made the go-around decision. It's not a great situation but I don't think it was that dangerous ultimately.
- wlonkly 4y ago
  And it's press button, receive go-around. I would imagine that choosing to hand-fly in that scenario would usually produce worse outcomes.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

peeters 4y ago

So from the ATC recordings it seems like everyone was made aware of the traffic, i.e. the Southwest flight acknowledged there was an approach 3 miles out and FedEx acknowledged the 737 ahead of them. i.e. it's not like the ATC forgot it gave one clearance or the other. So it seems like the Southwest takeoff took longer than expected and ATC lost track of the situation and thus did not revoke clearance to one or the other? This is not me assigning blame just trying to get a sense of the context. Edit: in the tower comms the Tower asks Southwest to confirm it's on the roll just 16 seconds before the call from FedEx for Southwest to abort takeoff. Incredible the tight margins these guys play with to keep things moving at the airport. People are speculating the tower had no visibility of the runway traffic due to weather.

diebeforei485 4y ago
Can you link to the ATC recordings? (Or the timestamp, if it's only available as part of a much a longer recording on LiveATC)?)
- dmix 4y ago
  https://archive.liveatc.net/kaus/KAUS3-Twr-Feb-04-2023-1230Z.mp3 https://archive.liveatc.net/kaus/KAUS3-Twr-Feb-04-2023-1230Z... https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1481281#p23660359 https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1481281#...
ec109685 4y ago
Given flight radar exits, why isn’t it possible to identify these situations in real-time reliably and alert there is a possible problem?
- dmix 4y ago
  From the linked twitter thread: > For starters visibility was down to 1/8th of a mile. So tower likely never saw how close this was. Second off apparently Austin does not have ground radar. Regardless of that though this is the second near catastrophic accident we’ve had in two weeks or so here in the US alone.

Xcelerate 4y ago

I wonder how often these close calls occur. I was on a flight a few days ago and using an app to track my flight while on the plane. We were at 32,000 ft and according to the app another aircraft was headed straight toward us at 33,000 ft. Just before the two planes overlapped on the app, I looked out my window and saw the other plane go right above us. It was absolutely insane how close it appeared and how astonishing a 1,000+ mph speed difference is. (If you're curious which flights: DL75 and TK1344 on Feb 1, 13:04:20 GMT). My understanding is that planes passing this close to each other is relatively common, as 1,000 ft is the minimum vertical separation for RVSM airspace, but I was still surprised that the other plane was directly above us and that some sort of optimization algorithm isn't used to maintain horizontal separation as well just in case there is an error in communication on the flight levels.

bathtub365 4y ago
Commercial airliners have the Traffic Collision Avoidance System that operates independently of ground based systems or ATC clearance to avoid collisions. Adding more separation would be the opposite of an optimization algorithm in the case of transoceanic flights - it would reduce the number of planes able to fly in the most efficient parts of the jet stream at one time.
stevepeg 4y ago
Airline pilot here: passing another aircraft opposite direction on the same lateral track with only 1000ft of vertical separation is about as normal as it gets. I’d say that it has occurred on almost all of the flights in my career so far. In certain areas of poor ATC coverage we sometimes use SLOP (strategic lateral offset procedures) to add a bit more margin for a height error. Edit: fun fact, you can actually hear the passing jet from the flight deck just after it has passed, a slight whoosh can be heard. Depending on conditions you can also feel a brief bump when crossing their wake (since the wake descends).
- Xcelerate 4y ago
  That's really cool! I can only imagine from a pilot's perspective it must look like you're about to collide though; that would be a bit nerve-racking for me.

jrockway 4y ago

I've always thought that "cleared to land" instructions are a little too optimistic. Multiple planes can be cleared to land on the same runway, and planes can be cleared for takeoff on that runway at the same time. The logical thing to do would be to only have one outstanding clearance at a time, and require landing aircraft to go around if they're not cleared by, say, the decision height on the approach. (Not sure where this point would be on a Cat III ILS approach, though.) Doing it "my" way would probably reduce throughput, and given that thousands of aircraft a day are cleared to land while the plane in front of them is still in the air, it must not be too dangerous. But I have always thought it's weird. (I did some googling and apparently they do it "my" way in every country except the US? Figures!)

_s 4y ago
This is slightly incorrect. Only one aircraft is actually allowed to depart/land on a given runway at any one point in time. You can have clearance to land after the aircraft in front has landed or departed, but broadly two civilian aircraft occupying the same runway is a no-no if either are taking off or landing. Seaplanes is another matter entirely, and of course there are dozens of exceptions. You can have multiple aircraft cleared for a departure or arrival or approach - but note that this is not a clearance to take off or land. I've been given clearances to land roughly 5 seconds before my wheel touch and my hands were just about to shove power in to go around. I've been told to go around after my wheels are on the runway too. We usually know what ATC is doing or waiting for and we can anticipate those calls. I don't think the US is different from the RoW in that manner - they all need to conform to the ICAO regulations - otherwise we'd have chaos with US pilots navigating China or vice versa. Me: FAA (US) & CASA (AU) PPL w/MEA + IR.
- hugh-avherald 4y ago
  In the US, clearance to land does not mean that other aircraft won't land, take-off, or cross your runway before you touch down. > Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe the positions of the aircraft and determine that prescribed runway separation will exist when the aircraft crosses the landing threshold. Issue traffic information to the succeeding aircraft if a preceding arrival has not been previously reported and when traffic will be departing prior to their arrival.

_s 4y ago

Lots of comments and obviously this seems like a big deal - but it usually isn't. Disclaimer - PPL, fly mostly twins under IFR, in Australia (still ICAO, if anything we're more or less a copy of the FAA). Most heavy jets are covering between 2-3 miles a minute when coming in to land. Usually a 3 mile call is to affirm to ATC that they are a minute away (or two for GA traffic). Most heavy jets also need anywhere from half a minute to three get airborne depending on size / weight / weather. On a clear day - you can see an aircraft lining up to depart so you can slow down a bit to give yourself some space. Usually ATC does that for you - asking one to slow down or the other to hurry up. Sometimes the sequencing gets a bit tight, it's annoying, you just power up and go around. Depending on visibility - you can circle in the circuit area to come back around, or follow the missed approach and line up to fly the approach (ILS, RNP etc) again. Now the hard thing here is that it was IFR weather - the incoming aircraft got visible with the runway when it was lower, and it didn't look like the departing aircraft was lifting off so they went around. It also means they have to follow the missed approach. Everyone was (mostly) aware of where everyone was, there was no real breakdown in communication nor in procedure. Departing aircraft knew there was one incoming and thought they had time, incoming knew there was a plane leaving and knew there might not be enough time. ATC is trying to keep the ball rolling for both. It's happened dozens of times for me. Final note - a Missed Approach procedure specifically takes you to safe place away from departing aircraft, who follow their own Standard Instrument Departures precisely because of this scenario. It's incredibly rare for these two procedures to converge / overlap. P.s. I've gone around / gone missed for everything from slow aircraft to gliders to a snake to wind shear to kangaroos. Literally the last few things just before landing you check are that your gear is down, you have clearance to land and the runway is clear.

itronitron 4y ago
Based on a similar incident I witnessed in the `90's, everyone in Austin can expect their evening news to feature a segment on how safe it is to fly in and out of Austin.
quickthrower2 4y ago
Thanks for the clear explanation. That is a great insight. Based on this I would expect goarounds to be more common but I barely remember witnessing one during my travel (not a heavy traveller but lets say about 100-200 flights total). Airport diversions yes once at least. So how often would you expect a go around in an airliner as a percentage of attempted landings?

sacnoradhq 4y ago

That's insane. Insane because I'm sitting here typing at the computer at 750 MSL / 200 AGL. If I look to my left, I see AUS approach parallel to the horizon about 3 miles / 5 km away. PS: Located in one of the most gerrymandered districts in the entire US, spanning Austin to San Antonio with a sliver of connection without constituents spanning I-35 for a distance of 80 mi / 130 km. The district looks like a broken q-tip or a lock pick.

cmurf 4y ago

https://avherald.com/h?article=504bc65b&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=504bc65b&opt=0

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Animation, radio audio, and subtitles courtesy of the VASAviation channel. https://youtu.be/DjoDn8zQgb8 https://youtu.be/DjoDn8zQgb8